13’s wavy hair in war of the sontarans 🥰🫶

While the Onion buying InfoWars is indeed extremely funny, very few of the posts I've seen commenting on the sale have mentioned that the families of the Sandy Hook victims apparently agreed to voluntarily reduce their lawsuit payout as part of a deal to ensure that the Onion would acquire InfoWars wholesale, rather than having the company broken up and auctioned off piecemeal, as the latter course could potentially have allowed some of those pieces to end up back in the hands of Alex Jones' cronies.

Like, yes, it is in fact very funny that InfoWars is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Clickhole, but the real props go out to the Sandy Hook families who saw the opportunity and willingly gave up the additional millions of dollars that could have been realised by stripping InfoWars for parts in order to make that happen.

first day as a second century warlord i have my men tie branches to their horses’ tails to stir up dust and make it look like there’s a lot of us but i forget it just rained so there isn’t any dust and the enemy can clearly see there’s like twenty of us all spread out in a line

second day as a second century warlord i bribe a bunch of kids to start singing a nursery rhyme i carefully crafted to spread misinformation and further my strategic ends but they change the lyrics to be about poop and the enemy isn’t misdirected at all

third day as a second century warlord i lure my enemy into a narrow valley and send a team of archers to shoot them from the high ground but there was a feral hog napping on the trail up to the overlook and they couldn’t decide whether to try and shoot it or just go around and by the time the hog woke up and left on its own the enemy had already passed safely below

fourth day as a second century warlord we attempt to join a battle on the side of the guy we want to ally with but he and the guy he’s fighting have really similar names and it’s finally dusty and i misread the standards and attack the wrong guy. so now we’re stuck with this total loser of a liege lord, because how the fuck do you explain that after a battle?

fifth day as a second century warlord and some sort of wizard wanders into camp, my loser liege lord wants to execute him for being a wizard but i convince him to let the wizard stay, because i want to do more weather-based strategies and i’m pretty sure having a camp wizard can help with that. after the welcome to the team banquet the wizard steals half the treasury and my liege lord’s wife and leaves

sixth day as a second century warlord my loser liege lord sends me to reinforce a city he’s taken, but in the confusion of leaving i forgot to take the token that would have gotten us into the city, so my men have to wait outside the city walls for like eight hours while i ride back to get it

seventh day as a second century warlord and my loser liege lord finally joins me in the city, it turns out he’s actually a pretty cool guy, and he isn’t even that mad at me for letting the wizard steal his wife. i decide to shoot my shot but i’m really nervous and keep on stalling because what if i mess up our relationship and by extension jeopardize the security of my men, and eventually he just says goodnight and goes back to his room, where an assassin is in the process of setting up to kill him

eighth day as a second century warlord and my loser liege lord tells me to fake defect to his rival warlord, the one i originally wanted to ally with, to find out if he was the one who sent the assassin and why. but my whole way over to the rival warlord i’m worried that this has something to do with the wizard thing or how awkward i made it last night

ninth day as a second century warlord i try to tactfully ask my fake liege lord if he sent the assassin to kill my loser liege lord and it turns out the idea of using assassins never occurred to him, but now that i’ve suggested it he’s really into it. in order to save my loser liege lord i volunteer to be the one to kill him

tenth day as a second century warlord on my way back to my loser liege lord’s city i realize i won’t be able to collect my men from my fake liege lord until i bring back my loser liege lord’s head. this would have been a great thing to think of before i got myself in this situation. i go back to my loser liege lord and ask him to rescue my men, and he tells me that if he could sack my fake liege lord’s camp he already would have. that doesn’t change the fact that my men are still trapped. they’re prisoners, even. i go back to my room to sulk

eleventh day as a second century warlord i find a little caged pigeon in the rafters of my loser liege lord’s room and deduce it belonged to the assassin. without asking permission or telling my loser liege lord goodbye i let the pigeon loose and follow it north. don’t ask what i was doing in my loser liege lord’s room. it’s not important

twelfth day as a second century warlord i disguise myself as a wizard and enter the camp of the coalition leader the pigeon led me to. in the middle of my little sleight of hand performance i make eye contact with the coalition leader’s second-in-command. IT’S THE WIZARD THAT STOLE MY LOSER LIEGE LORD’S WIFE. after the banquet i corner the fake wizard and ask him what the fuck is going on and he just says “wouldn’t you like to know” and leaves. i don’t know what to say to that so i just let him go

thirteenth day as a second century warlord i’m honestly so sick of not knowing what’s going on, so i adjust my wizard costume to passably disguise myself as a woman and break into the women’s area of the camp, where sure enough my loser liege lord’s wife is. i ask her what she’s doing here and she tells me the fake wizard overheard her singing a poem she overheard on the street, not knowing it contains the coalition leader’s formation’s weaknesses. the fake wizard kidnapped her and assigned an assassin to kill her husband before they figured out the poem’s significance. she shares the first couplet with me but i’m discovered and thrown out before she can share any more. she doesn’t need to. through a bizarre coincidence of homophones, it’s the poop version of my misinformation nursery rhyme

fourteenth day as a second century warlord i go back to my loser liege lord and tell him everything, urging him to join with my fake liege lord to attack the coalition leader according to the weaknesses in the nursery rhyme. he tells me frankly that he doesn’t trust me anymore. i ask him to execute me if that’s really true, because i can’t bear to live if i can’t protect him and i can’t protect my men. he agrees to attack the coalition leader

fifteenth day as a second century warlord. due to the information in the nursery rhyme, and thanks to my loser liege lord reminding me of the weather conditions multiple times while planning our battle strategy, our alliance carries the day. my loser liege lord gets his wife back. my men tell me that our fake liege lord actually treated them really well and they’d like to stay with him if i don’t mind. i do mind, now that neither the men i love nor the man i love have any use for me, but i don’t tell them that

sixteenth day as a second century warlord i’m preparing to leave to i don’t know where, maybe to try to become a wizard for real, when my loser liege lord stops me and asks me where i’m going. he says he had hoped i would continue to work as his advisor. i was unaware i was his advisor in the first place. i agree, and he tells me he’s truly honored to have me in his service at last. he has known i am a rare and talented man with a strategic intelligence far above his ever since the day he witnessed me tying branches to my horses’ tails in six inches of mud, and could not for the life of him figure out why

I want there to be fewer MRAs. Do you want that too? Do you want to know what helps us get there, from a feminist perspective?

You may not like my answer: acknowledge that sexism can affect men. Recognize that, although the patriarchy generally privileges men, they are also subject to restrictive gender roles that are harmful to them (shunning all things “feminine,” not showing emotions, being protectors/strong, never admitting being victims of SA/IPV, having to “earn” their manhood, etc.).

Give young men a place other than the right-wing manosphere to be heard about the issues they experience. If these grifters are telling them “only we understand how hard it is to be a man, the left hates you for your gender” and they look to the left and see “men claiming they have ‘problems’ are losers who just hate women, all men are trash,” do you think they’re going to be drawn towards or away from feminism?

Before you leave an angry response: no, this does not mean to center men instead of women in feminism, it just means including them at all. No, it is not “coddling” men to treat them with human dignity, you can and should continue to hold them (and every other gender) responsible for unpacking sexist beliefs. No, this does not mean it is every individual woman’s and feminist’s responsibility to prioritize men’s issues, it just means at the least not shutting them down when they do speak up about sexism. No, it is not “not all men-ing” to point out that “men are trash” sentiments hurt the feminist movement rather than helping it. Ask questions before you make accusations on this post, please. I have been abused by men too, I get it, this isn’t easy to hear.

All of this. An individual boy is not The Patriarchy, and by making him account for, and atone for, what The Patriarchy has wrought is wrong. (This is not 'not all x', which is acknowledging when the conversation doesn't include you, even though you're x.)

Nobody walks into a counter-cultural space knowing everything about it - else, it wouldn't be counter-cultural. That boy was brought up with the lessons The Patriarchy teaches, and was punished when he strayed, and rewarded when he did not. That's a LOT of unlearning to do.

If we HAD a robust, universal deprogramming curriculum that everyone agreed upon (ha!) and was widely accessible (double ha!) then this message wouldn't be necessary. But every enclave has its own terms, its own priorities, once you get past 'all humans are equal'.

I want to reiterate: it is not coddling men to treat them with human dignity.

Stop being so fucking black-white binary, okay? There is actually a lot of fucking territory between "you have to never ever EVER make a man feel uncomfortable!!!" and "I should be able to say that all men are garbage and would-be rapists and a blight on the face of the world without anyone being hurt by it!!!"

There is even a lot of territory between "sometimes I need to vent to people who share my experience without having to watch my words" and "pointing out that my extremely public, boosted, Discourse Laden posts that are all about how horrible men are by virtue of being men, always and forever, may have negative consequences is SEXIST!!!!"

Social justice does not mean 'which group do I get to stop caring about/do I get to abuse, even 'just' verbally, without worrying about the consequences?'; that is not any kind of justice.

Acting like men are human absolutely includes holding them accountable but it also involves believing that bad behaviour is not "because he's a man", and especially in the case of young men - especially in the case of fucking teenagers and children - that involves actively showing them what behaviour is actually pro-social, desired, good, and rewarded. And as it happens this does in fact involve them not constantly hearing "men are trash, men are all lying about anything being hard ever, men are always bad" in one form or another with nothing else . . . .from anyone but the alt-right.

And yeah, absolutely, this should be the responsibility of other guys - but the fact of the matter is, if there aren't enough of them on our side already, then mayyyyybe even if it's really fucking unfair, since we can't literally just execute half of the human race, we may need some of us to take on the work - especially with the, you know, children and teenage boys - ourselves.

I still believe that deradicalizing men is the work of men, not just because that's what's fair, but because I think it's what's tactically necessary. The people we need to reach - not just men, but the women who help perpetuate sexism - aren't primed to listen to women.

But we need those men to be willing to do the work. And honestly? While it IS the right thing to do, and it IS good for men and not just women? Nobody does their best work while they're being constantly treated like shit by people who benefit from their efforts.

If you can't bring yourself to reach out to men who are actively bigoted (and I understand, I really, really do), at least try to be respectful to the ones who are on our team.

(And again: please note that "be basically respectful" ie "do not make it so they are constantly being told They Are Garbage and no I promise 'you're one of the good ones' doesn't feel any better in this context than any other", does not mean "prioritize them above everything else" or "foreground their work to the exclusion of others" or any other thing other than "maybe we don't use generalized gendered insults/make generalized negative statements about the gender of someone who's supposedly our friend while he's in the damn room".)

"Be just as kind to allies as you would be to others in the community" and "We shouldn't have to be nice to allies for them not to hate us" and "Try not to take out your anger on our allies" and "Our allies should be able to listen to our anger without making it about them" and "Sometimes allies do have useful points that we can listen to because of their outside perspective" and "Allies shouldn't speak over the lived experiences of marginalised folks" and "I shouldn't have to be kind to be heard" and "I don't have to be heard to be kind" are not mutually exclusive.

Omg!!!!! I Iove this! Thank you for this unsolicited dick pic

I think two of the most important things about Jack Harkness, two things that inform almost everything he does and the choices he makes, are this: that he is a soldier NOT a leader, and that his entire life since childhood has been awash in survivor's guilt (and his whole existence after becoming immortal is an even more extreme version of survivor's guilt).

Jack is not a natural leader. He can think on the fly and he's good at getting people to listen to him, but he's not good at control, or at being objective. He's a natural second in command, he's a soldier. He was brought up to do what other people told him to, and to improvise if he had to (Time Agency, etc). But I really don't think he wants to be the leader of Torchwood. Unfortunately, everything about him means that he has to be. He knows from experience that others having control over him is dangerous, others knowing about his immortality while he's a subordinate to them is dangerous, and he also knows that his own immortality gives him an advantage as a leader. But I don't think he's good at leading. He tries to be. But he's fumbling along, in a time period he's not native to and a planet he's not native to and an unfathomable lifespan, and as charming as he is I think he's often not good with people. He's detached where he should be personal and emotional where he should be detached (or at least more level-headed). He's often too extreme or not harsh enough when it comes to things like discipline or dealing with the problems/traumas/mistakes of his employees or even civilians. He can't handle his employees seeing him uncertain/vulnerable and it makes for huge problems over and over again.

But all of this does make sense because I think in the back of Jack's mind there's always this wheel spinning, these gears turning and turning and calculating the impact and trauma each of his actions or decisions or the events around him are going to have on his own emotions for far longer than normal humans tend to consider. Because the catalyst for any part of the life we see him leading is survivor's guilt. He lost his father and his brother on the same day, joined the military and lost his best friend, joined the Time Agency and lost his memories (and maybe thinks he did something terrible). Then he died, and when Rose brought him back, he was all alone on the satellite with nothing but the corpses of the people who had fought beside him and zero explanation as to why he survived, and he had lost Rose and the Doctor besides. And then all his life on earth since, he has lost coworkers and lovers and civilians he tried and failed to save and probably also aliens he tried and failed to save. And I think by the time he becomes reluctant leader of Torchwood, every action is, whether conscious or subconscious, taken with the intent of minimizing that kind of trauma and the impact of loss.

Except that I think that the survivor's guilt has another layer to it, which is that feeling of needing to sacrifice or absolve himself in some way. No one else is willing to make the difficult decisions, no one else will move forward with the painful and unpleasant actions, even if there's no other way, even though they will someday perish and no longer see the ripples of their actions. But Jack - who cannot die, who must live with the guilt or the pain or the trauma of those actions and decisions for the rest of his very very very long life - is the one who realizes that he must take on those painful responsibilities and must do certain things even though they're terrible, because it ends up being the sacrifice of one over the whole world. And every single time, he's guilty about it, and that makes him want even more to sacrifice his own hurt for the grief and loss of others.

So it's this strange cycle of wanting to protect himself from hurt and from loss and from the survivor's guilt, but being driven by guilt towards painful and/or self-sacrificing actions. Which then makes him fear being seen as vulnerable or uncertain, and he struggles to do things on a smaller scale or in a more level-headed way, because he's not supposed to be leading like this, it's not something that comes naturally, and if he makes emotional connections by being a leader, he'll end up trapped in survivor's guilt yet again each time one of his employees or friends or lovers dies.

It's just a terrible cycle and he's trapped in it for the rest of his existence. Although if he really is the Face Of Boe, then I imagine at some point he eventually finds peace with it all or something, but I think so long as he has a human-form he's stuck with this cycle of leadership and loss and sacrifice and mistakes.

I think it's really important that Jack is not good at his job as a leader. He makes a ton of mistakes, he fucks up so much and his employees or even civilians end up collateral damage, whether physically or just emotionally. He wants to be a good leader, I think, and he's trying, but he's fallible, and he's a stranger in literally every sense, and I think a really big part of his character is that he constantly is forced to live in this bizarre dichotomy where he has to be both very distant and cold and detached, and also very emotional and intense and personal. And any other person would collapse under the stress of repeating that over and over and over again for decades, but he has to figure out how to navigate this weight as an infinite existence that can't ever collapse or let it burn him up and kill him.

Senators are going to vote on whether or not we should continue to send aid to Israel on Wednesday, November 13th. Call them, bombard their phone lines with calls. Every fucking day. We have a chance of doing something about this.

yall

here is a tool to help you find your representative by zipcode

this is also a great resource

BOMBARD. HOUND. SHOUT IT OUT.

i have understood so many things about online leftist culture by the fact that when i said "your local community has people you will morally and politically disagree with but you cannot lock them out of accessing any tangible service you’re organising" one of the tags responding said "this isn’t about proshippers in here you’re not welcome" like. folks. focus with me. some of us are homeless here.

There's a disconnect happening here because the primary function of social media for most casual users is to form a circle of friends around the usual things that friendships are built on: shared interests and lifestyles and ideas of what is important and what is unacceptable. When people are mainly doing leftism on social media, this encourages thinking of leftism as centered around establishing high-minded social clubs.

For anyone who still isn't getting it from someone who helps people IRL: There's a difference between whom you're helping to feed at the mealshare and whom you're choosing to hang out with for fun after the mealshare. You don't have to invite a hungry person with opinions you don't like to play board games with you, but you do have to help keep them from starving if you're serious about leftist organizing.

"guys in a spaceship" is really one of the genres of all time. like no way dude i wonder what they're gonna do in the spaceship this week

I couldn't have said it better myself.

As a 30 year old man who escaped the Alt-right pipeline, you're not going to be happy about the answer.

All I hear from leftists is how much they hate me for my immutable traits, how much they blame me for everything wrong with the world, how much they want me and everyone who looks like me dead.

Whereas Alt-right types would call me "brother" and welcome me into their ranks so long as I hated the right ways.

Do you understand the difference?

I'm an ally and support equality because I feel it's the morally correct choice to make, but holy fuck is it difficult to reconcile that with the fact that means fighting for a lot of people who see you as the scum of the earth.

Read this and then read it again and then read some fucking bell hooks because this is a legitimate problem on the left.

"To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being." - bell hooks, The Will to Change https://bellhooksbooks.com/product/the-will-to-change/

If you have sons, start there. Give your kids a hug. Listen to what they have to say. Everyone wants to feel loved and heard. Let that begin at home.

You absolutely cannot solve the problem of identity-driven hatred by redirecting it towards another identity. Yes, even cishetallo white abled men. I don't give a shit what your excuse is. If you experience this force everyday, you should understand that the force of hatred like that is inherently destructive. It cannot be used for good. Properly solving that kind of hate means purging it from yourself. Hell, the only part that's fully under your power is the ability to purge it from yourself.

Hurting the "right" people helps no one, and we must learn to recognize that when someone who's in on some bad shit starts to decide they want to change, it is imperative to give them that chance. Because ultimately, the best way to get less Nazis is to ensure it's smooth for people when they decide they no longer want to be Nazis. Because really, the last thing you want an ex-Nazi to think is "Man, my life was so much better back when I was a Nazi."

Do not underestimate the importance of deradicalization. Don't let the cop in your head win here, because yeah, that's what you're doing.

At its most fundamental level, "prejudice" is literally just pre-judging someone based on an initial, superficial impression of them.

Prejudice is something that happens naturally to humans. It evolved as a survival trait - it's pattern recognition. If you observe a big fluffy kitty eating your bestie, then it's a good survival strategy to avoid any and all big fluffy kitties, rather than give each one the benefit of the doubt. (Maybe _this kitty_ just wants pats?).

That is where prejudice comes from. It evolved as a survival mechanism, but like many evolved survival mechanisms, it is often maladaptive.

If your default position towards any person is that they are fundamentally bad because of something that you can identify at a glance, then you have a prejudice. Whether that is race, or skin colour, or sex, or gender, or any of a million things.

And to be clear, having a prejudice doesn't fundamentally make you bad or evil or wrong. Like I just said, it's a natural human trait. However, if you act on that prejudice without taking a moment to evaluate it, to challenge it, then that is an issue. Are you against this person for a real reason, or just because they slightly remind you of someone else who you were against?

I often hear people wondering how conservative women can vote for Trump. "The Right hates women, don't they? Why would they do that? Why would anyone vote for someone who hates them?"

But if the default perception of the Left is that they hate white men, then why would any white man want to vote left? It's the same equation, just a different sex.

If you dislike or condemn a person, or the members of a group of people, based on their observed behaviour, then that is a reasonable opinion, not a prejudice.

But if you dislike or condemn someone or a group of people based on an _immutable_ or _superficial_ trait, then you are engaging in a prejudice, and that's something you might want to stop and contemplate more carefully.

People are people. They are messy and complicated, and while those immutable traits definitely shape them, they do not necessarily define them. When we learn to care about people first, then leftist values come naturally.

and hey, ladies, we aren't going to let our anger at men turn us into radfem TERFs, okay?

Alice who works at Kroger and just started HRT four months ago isn't the problem.

and we're not going to turn into the radfem TERF gender essentialism that women are inherently weak and helpless victims and that men are inherently heartless, violent abusers and rapists.

Men are the victims in all of this, too, whether they realize it or not. They're condemning themselves to a lifetime of misery by taking out their self-esteem issues on women rather than valuing themselves.

The alt-right is a genuine fucking tragedy for these men who could have been decent, kind and happy people.

if shes your girl then why have i slowly been replacing her parts until there’s nothing left of her original body? is she then still your girl?

They ship of theseus’d my girl

Can’t have shit in Detroit

this actually perfectly demonstrates the transitive property of memes: you can replace a meme piece by piece until it only structurally resembles the original, and it is, in fact, the same meme.

call that the meme of theseus thesis

tumblrites can have a little intertextuality as a treat

my naym is ship and when i’m broke the broken part from me they toke

replace the part had been the plan but in the morn hand door car man

*me shoving transitive properties into my purse* sorry, I have to go

We owe the reddit refugees an apology for making them see posts like this

no we don’t this shit is enrichment in their new enclosure

*slaps roof of Tumblr* This baby can fit so many rare vintages, you just have to go deep enough, there are some great memes in the cellar, come see

morden lingering around b5 for so long before anyone noticed that he was a shady cunt is so funny because he walked around looking like this 24/7

One Dress a Day Challenge

August: Fantasy & Sci-Fi

Babylon 5 / Andreas Katsulas as Ambassador G'Kar

Just look at the sheer number of materials and textures that go into making this costume, from the ornate breastplate to the padded shoulders and studded sleeves. The designer for this show, Ann Bruce Aling, had a background mostly in theater design, and it shows in the bold design work. Combined with the prosthetics that turn the actor into an alien, the whole effect is a great example of worldbuilding through costume.